In the past I would have agreed with Yuval. But I invite anyone that thinks life is meaningless to have a daughter. Seeing her growing up and smiling has answered what dozens of philosophy books haven’t.
One of your best pieces yet Bo, cheers. As I have nothing to add philosophically, would like to mention that for Tchaikovsky's saddest and most beautiful symphonies, the last three, you cannot beat Mravinsky with the Leningrad Phil on DG (available on streaming). These are studio recordings made in the West in 1960: completely unsentimental, monastically disciplined, absolutely shattering--true desert-island gems.
"What is more, science is extraordinarily effective precisely because it sets aside questions of meaning, value and purpose in order to focus on causal processes."
Yes, science does not judge—it attempts to explain the material world.
To extend this observation (with which I agree), it is up to the sentient individual to make some form of subjective meaning of it. Whether the resultant personal code of behavior/response allows the individual to reproduce is the objective evaluation of that meaning.
Great article. Once one sheds crude scientism it really opens up a lot of doors. You should explore some philosophy of mind if you haven’t already I think you’d enjoy it. I did and once I did it made me realize not only is scientism false, but the mind can’t be purely “material” (at least in the Cartesian sense of the term) because of the problem of intentionality and rationality and the scholastic tradition was right about that from the start. None of that is found in a microscope studying neurons but rigorous argumentation.
I love philosophy of mind, but haven't wrestled with it in years. I am more or less a functionalist ("the mind is what the brain does). That's not crude materialism, but it's not dualism either.
Harari regularly spews his opinions out as pronunciamentos. No, thanks.
Nice last paragraph. And in fact we might find that those paired "opposites" draw closer together over time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Experiment are filled with awesome mystery in my view.
Thank you so much for this! I am teaching a Core Science course this semester on positive psychology research, and I start the course by having the students read philosophers' perspective on "the good life" so that they can see what philosophy versus empirical methods have to offer. I think I might use your piece to help my students see the distinction more clearly.
"For meaning is not one object among others, not a proton or a quark waiting to be revealed by ever more powerful instruments of observation. Meaning consists, rather, in the way the world is disclosed to creatures who act, choose, suffer and hold one another responsible—it is disclosed in the watching of a sunset, the whispering of a prayer, the reading of a novel, the refraining from cruelty, the observation of a distant planet."
Nicely put. Meaning is subjective, not objective. It has to do with our being conscious creatures, though why or how we are conscious is a mystery beyond science, where it will always remain not only as a matter of fact but as a matter of principle.
"If I were not allowed access to these questions, it would not have been worth being born. For what could give me a reason to be glad that I had been included in the ranks of the living? Digesting food and drink? Stuffing full this body – which is vulnerable, delicate, and will perish if it is not constantly replenished – and living as nurse to a sick man? Fearing death, the one thing to which we are born? Take away this invaluable blessing, and life is not worth the sweat and the panic." [Seneca - Natural Questions]
And why are either of those things meaningful? Is meaning simply another way of saying “stuff humans like?” If so, does the most meaningful life belong to he who consumes the most heroin and cocaine? If not, why not?
I found you examples of meaning in the article odd in the same suggestive direction. Why is it reading ‘To Build a Fire’ that tells us what being cold is like, and not…being cold? Why is meaning found in a sunset, a prayer, a novel, the stars, and not in going to work, eating, winning a fight, sex? Why did you mention those more poetic, ‘higher’ things? Perhaps because pointing to coarser things would have invited the question “is that all there is?” I am sure raising a daughter is great, but when your daughter gazes up and you and asks “daddy, what’s the meaning of life? Why did you have me? Why did you bring me into this world, what am I here for” what will you say—to eat a good meal?
The point that science isn’t the place to look for meaning is well taken, but religion, art, and philosophy haven’t done a great job either. (Not that it’s reasonable to expect an answer to it all here. I just wanted to point out that the choice to focus on more elevated, rarefied things is perhaps obscurantist.)
Seeking is a fundamental mammalian emotion. Satisfying that emotion, in accordance with mammalian nature, is meaningful. Likewise the emotion care with respect, for example, one's children and grandchildren. [eg Panksepp & Biven "The Archeology of Mind"] Science is pre-eminent in the search for meaning.
It is a non-scientific assertion in an otherwise scientific work that appears solely intended to convince readers that their own lives are meaningless. As the article points out, it’s hardly the only one.
It makes one wonder what the authors intend to accomplish by making such assertions.
Harari's impressive idea generator always yields great material to test one's bullshit detector.
Yes, if one uses a sufficiently reductionist mental model, there is no meaning! There is no concept of 'meaning' in physics. It's not in the vocabulary of that model! It's the same kind of confusion as Sam Harris triumphantly not finding 'free will' in physics.
But there comfortably exists meaning on higher levels of abstraction. We use it every day – psychology, linguistics, ...
In that introductory quote of his, he first assumes a reductionist model and then tries to bait us into accepting that proves non-existence of meaning on the level of human psychology. Also, how would Harari answer the question: Does what you just said convey any meaning?
Yes I think this is right in a technical way. The question "What is the meaning of life" does not have an answer in the way that "What is the meaning of the first sentence of Crime and Punishment?" or "What is the meaning of 'scopae' in Latin?" On the other hand, the question, "What makes life meaningful?" does have an answer--or, more accurately, many answers.
> Dawkins seems to expect science to provide an objective, non-superstitious answer to the question “What is the meaning of life?”
But he goes on with an answer:
> Since there's no cosmic meaning, humans must create their own, finding value in things like science, beauty, love, and contributing to human flourishing.
He doesn’t expect science to provide meaning at all; he expects us to create our own […] in science, beauty, love
You might disagree with him, but it is misleading to quote only half of what he says. At no point does he say that meaning only comes from science.
Yuval Noah Harari is an obnoxious pseudointellectual and Sapiens is one of the worst books on Human Evolution & History ever written
In the past I would have agreed with Yuval. But I invite anyone that thinks life is meaningless to have a daughter. Seeing her growing up and smiling has answered what dozens of philosophy books haven’t.
Yes meaning is not some intellectual discovery. It is lived.
One probably should not imply that daughters are better than sons.
It seems to me that meaning is subjective, while empirical knowledge is objective.
One of your best pieces yet Bo, cheers. As I have nothing to add philosophically, would like to mention that for Tchaikovsky's saddest and most beautiful symphonies, the last three, you cannot beat Mravinsky with the Leningrad Phil on DG (available on streaming). These are studio recordings made in the West in 1960: completely unsentimental, monastically disciplined, absolutely shattering--true desert-island gems.
Bo, excellent article.
"What is more, science is extraordinarily effective precisely because it sets aside questions of meaning, value and purpose in order to focus on causal processes."
Yes, science does not judge—it attempts to explain the material world.
To extend this observation (with which I agree), it is up to the sentient individual to make some form of subjective meaning of it. Whether the resultant personal code of behavior/response allows the individual to reproduce is the objective evaluation of that meaning.
Great article. Once one sheds crude scientism it really opens up a lot of doors. You should explore some philosophy of mind if you haven’t already I think you’d enjoy it. I did and once I did it made me realize not only is scientism false, but the mind can’t be purely “material” (at least in the Cartesian sense of the term) because of the problem of intentionality and rationality and the scholastic tradition was right about that from the start. None of that is found in a microscope studying neurons but rigorous argumentation.
I love philosophy of mind, but haven't wrestled with it in years. I am more or less a functionalist ("the mind is what the brain does). That's not crude materialism, but it's not dualism either.
Bo
Harari regularly spews his opinions out as pronunciamentos. No, thanks.
Nice last paragraph. And in fact we might find that those paired "opposites" draw closer together over time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Experiment are filled with awesome mystery in my view.
Thank you so much for this! I am teaching a Core Science course this semester on positive psychology research, and I start the course by having the students read philosophers' perspective on "the good life" so that they can see what philosophy versus empirical methods have to offer. I think I might use your piece to help my students see the distinction more clearly.
I think William James "Pragmatism" and Ian McGilcrest's "The Master and his Emissary" would have something to say to Mr Harari
"For meaning is not one object among others, not a proton or a quark waiting to be revealed by ever more powerful instruments of observation. Meaning consists, rather, in the way the world is disclosed to creatures who act, choose, suffer and hold one another responsible—it is disclosed in the watching of a sunset, the whispering of a prayer, the reading of a novel, the refraining from cruelty, the observation of a distant planet."
Nicely put. Meaning is subjective, not objective. It has to do with our being conscious creatures, though why or how we are conscious is a mystery beyond science, where it will always remain not only as a matter of fact but as a matter of principle.
Yes, consciousness precedes any attempt to explain the world. And so does meaning.
Bo
typo? "That you are the other machines don’t have meaning."
Fixed — thanks.
—NC
Meaning rests in discovering and understanding the universe.
Yes, that's one important source of meaning. But so is eating a good dinner!
Bo
"If I were not allowed access to these questions, it would not have been worth being born. For what could give me a reason to be glad that I had been included in the ranks of the living? Digesting food and drink? Stuffing full this body – which is vulnerable, delicate, and will perish if it is not constantly replenished – and living as nurse to a sick man? Fearing death, the one thing to which we are born? Take away this invaluable blessing, and life is not worth the sweat and the panic." [Seneca - Natural Questions]
And why are either of those things meaningful? Is meaning simply another way of saying “stuff humans like?” If so, does the most meaningful life belong to he who consumes the most heroin and cocaine? If not, why not?
I found you examples of meaning in the article odd in the same suggestive direction. Why is it reading ‘To Build a Fire’ that tells us what being cold is like, and not…being cold? Why is meaning found in a sunset, a prayer, a novel, the stars, and not in going to work, eating, winning a fight, sex? Why did you mention those more poetic, ‘higher’ things? Perhaps because pointing to coarser things would have invited the question “is that all there is?” I am sure raising a daughter is great, but when your daughter gazes up and you and asks “daddy, what’s the meaning of life? Why did you have me? Why did you bring me into this world, what am I here for” what will you say—to eat a good meal?
The point that science isn’t the place to look for meaning is well taken, but religion, art, and philosophy haven’t done a great job either. (Not that it’s reasonable to expect an answer to it all here. I just wanted to point out that the choice to focus on more elevated, rarefied things is perhaps obscurantist.)
Seeking is a fundamental mammalian emotion. Satisfying that emotion, in accordance with mammalian nature, is meaningful. Likewise the emotion care with respect, for example, one's children and grandchildren. [eg Panksepp & Biven "The Archeology of Mind"] Science is pre-eminent in the search for meaning.
Then from a purely scientific viewpoint, Harari had no need to write that sentence.
It is a non-scientific assertion in an otherwise scientific work that appears solely intended to convince readers that their own lives are meaningless. As the article points out, it’s hardly the only one.
It makes one wonder what the authors intend to accomplish by making such assertions.
Harari's impressive idea generator always yields great material to test one's bullshit detector.
Yes, if one uses a sufficiently reductionist mental model, there is no meaning! There is no concept of 'meaning' in physics. It's not in the vocabulary of that model! It's the same kind of confusion as Sam Harris triumphantly not finding 'free will' in physics.
But there comfortably exists meaning on higher levels of abstraction. We use it every day – psychology, linguistics, ...
In that introductory quote of his, he first assumes a reductionist model and then tries to bait us into accepting that proves non-existence of meaning on the level of human psychology. Also, how would Harari answer the question: Does what you just said convey any meaning?
Or as Luhmann might say, meaning is simply there, kind of like ether, producing misunderstanding; human, all too human. Nice piece.
https://open.substack.com/pub/publisherpt/p/the-meaning-of-life-true-and-false?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Yes I think this is right in a technical way. The question "What is the meaning of life" does not have an answer in the way that "What is the meaning of the first sentence of Crime and Punishment?" or "What is the meaning of 'scopae' in Latin?" On the other hand, the question, "What makes life meaningful?" does have an answer--or, more accurately, many answers.
Bo
What is the meaning of your life might be a better question. Both as you understand it yourself and as others might see it.
You are correct to quote Dawkins as saying this:
> Dawkins seems to expect science to provide an objective, non-superstitious answer to the question “What is the meaning of life?”
But he goes on with an answer:
> Since there's no cosmic meaning, humans must create their own, finding value in things like science, beauty, love, and contributing to human flourishing.
He doesn’t expect science to provide meaning at all; he expects us to create our own […] in science, beauty, love
You might disagree with him, but it is misleading to quote only half of what he says. At no point does he say that meaning only comes from science.